Home › Forum › Ask A Member › 1954 Mercury Mark 50 who has one ,is this one
- This topic has 31 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by
scot-marechaux.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 26, 2019 at 9:17 am #185912
That belly pan does not look correct. The Mark 50’s I got have the rear rail about 1″ away from the pan, the Mark 55 casting the rail was pretty tight to the pan, this looks like a Mark 55 belly pan.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by
RANDY SCHNEIDER.
October 27, 2019 at 7:53 am #185953As often happens with old Mercs, the recoil likely let go at some point. Rather than repair the existing recoil, someone may have swapped on another recoil, in this case one from a 1955 Mark 55. It’s also possible he entire upper end has been replaced, as the gap at the carry rail in the rear is not present, also noted above. The lower unit, as has been noted above, is Mark 50, as evidenced by the lack of Dynafloats, and the presence of the copper tube exhaust relief. Another telltale will be the cylinder block, as Mark 50s have a sand cast block. But, first gen Mark 55s also had sandcast blocks, too, so it’s not a slam dunk. A mix of parts, for sure…
October 27, 2019 at 10:40 am #185962all mark 50’s had double line tanks (pressure) but could have been changed to single line fuel pump tank,
November 28, 2019 at 6:42 am #188155need pics of the block and carbs with the cowls off serial number should be stamped on top and we could see fittings and carb numbers easy to put something together out of a scrap heap for cheap it is a mark 50 tower though due to lack of shocks also could tell if block was sand cast or die cast
May 31, 2020 at 10:56 pm #204639I just acquired a Merc Mark 55E 40 HP serial # 907157. Runs but has an issue. Trying to determine where to begin. Can anyone help? Bruce 704 277-2018 or brucebodenstein@gmail.com. Thx
June 7, 2020 at 1:03 pm #205077There are a lot of things unique to the MK 50 some of which were carried over to early MK 55s as Mercury never threw anything away just used the parts on the next model until gone. The carbs were different, the electric starter was different, the electrical connection was different, the lower unit had three or four small holes for the water inlet,( these were often drilled out to solve over heating issues). The prop shaft had a different number of splines. That is all I can think of off the top of my head. I have a MK 50E short shaft and did some extensive research which I posted about 2008-2009. I will look and see if I still have Info. I also have some info and pictures which I think came from the “old Merc” website. Not sure if that is still up or not.
June 8, 2020 at 12:22 am #205119Mark 55 motors came in several series (Mark 55 / 55E-1) (Mark 55 / 55E-2) (Mark 55 / 55E-3) (Mark 55 / 55E-4) and (Mark 55 A).
These (Mark 55 / 55E-1 Mark 55 / 55E-2) came with three different flywheels. Only one has the same part number (208-998A1) as the MK 50E. These models also came with only one crankshaft (400-3). This is the only crankshaft used on the MK 50.
These (Mark 55 / 55E-3 Mark 55 / 55E-4) came with no less than five different flywheels, two with the small taper and three with the large. None of them have the same part number (208-998A1) as the MK 50. While a small taper flywheel from this series may fit the Mk 50, it very well may have the wrong tooth count. Large taper flywheel and crankshaft (400-1319) started with ser # 1094866 on Mark 55E-3 engines.
The compatibility stops with the Mk 55/55-E 1&2 series. Mark 55 A and 58 don’t even figure into the equation. They all have the large taper flywheel and crankshaft (400-1319).
The bottom line seems to be the Mk 50 had only one crankshaft and one electric start flywheel. This, small taper, crankshaft was also shared with early Mark 55 models. Some early Mk 55 motors also had the sand cast blocks, which would mean no mounting holes for the starter.
The Mk 50 electric start flywheel is also shared with the early Mk 55 and those Mk 30 models with the small taper crankshaft. My Mk 30 has the small flange, manual start flywheel, with the manual start ratchet cast into the top of it. It fits and functions as a manual start on my Mk 50.
I have not been able to find the article I previously read about the starters and flywheels but as I recall there is a one-tooth difference between the large flange and the small flange flywheels and their corresponding starters. So a starter used on an early Mk 55, with small flange and a starter used on a Mk30, with small flange would have the correct number of teeth on the bendix drive but not necessarily have the same mounting flange or choke solenoid mount to be used on a Mk 50.
June 8, 2020 at 10:10 am #205129Good info Edward!
Since the original pister of this thread seems to have disappeared (and therefore probably wouldn’t notice if the subject matter drifted) I wonder if you’d be willing to post a few pictures of your mark 50E? I have only seen one in pictures and one on craigs list a few years back that was such a basket case it would have been pretty difficult to restore. I believe the E start models are pretty rare.
Thanks!
ScottJune 11, 2020 at 8:21 pm #205483This link will take you to a page on Old Mercs where you can see a totally restored MK 50.
https://www.oldmercs.com/category_s/126.htmMy motor was a semi basket case when I got it from a small repair shop in Tupper Lake NY. It had been cannibalized somewhat and I spent a good two years hunting down the missing parts.
June 11, 2020 at 11:59 pm #205493Some more Mk 50 stats. The Prop shaft had 14 splines and the later MK 55 had 11. The MK 50 also had a fairbanks magneto and an oddball electric starter which did not use a bendix. It also had a fuel sediment bowl. The electrical connection was not on the motor but on a short cable coming from the bottom of the bottom cowling.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
